they believe, "A potential global warming issue has been identified that should be treated as a potential problem for which root cause is not definitely known."
For this reason, they argue, the U.S. government is "over-reacting" to the concerns of the media, scientists and activists and that a more "rational process for allocation of research funds without the constant media hype of an AGW crisis is needed."

"The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought," said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" who estimates that moderate warming will be beneficial for crop growth and human health.

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.

Suck it you smug assholes who crow as if you know with certainty how the global climate functions. The models are horrendously flawed and always have been, a ton more research is needed before we even approach a clue.

My favorites are the "sea rise" idiots. It would take massive temperature shifts to bring about any significant rise. In the same vein, I saw a recent report that claimed they could explain why ocean temperature rise isn't what they predicted. The temp is rising but it is rising way down below the surface. An area we conveniently don't have any way to accurately produce past values for. Keep moving those goalposts!!

It's true we have a couple reports here and there that still say climate change isn't real or man made or whatever. There are way more that say it is real. I guess the question is that if you are wrong and it is man made and we keep making it worse, will we be able to reverse course? If so, great. If not, great world you left for the grandkids.

You can't be ****ing serious. So we got it all ****ing down! We know more than enough to make predictive models.... we just don't do it cuz we don't wanna.

NOT ONE ACCURATE PREDICTIVE MODEL IN HUMAN HISTORY. Not one.

I have no problem with people who "believe" humans are causing global climate change. I certainly think it's possible. It's the ****ing ridiculously HORRENDOUS "scientists" who claim to KNOW that piss me off. In NO OTHER SERIOUS FIELD would their antics not be laughed off the pages of journals. You can't constantly pass of your hypotheses as facts ESPECIALLY after they keep coming up short.

Did you bother to read the report or just the canned critique by a known alarmist? I stopped reading the critique when they claimed this...

Quote:

we at Skeptical Science have shown several times, the IPCC temperature projections have been exceptionally accurate (Figure 4).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
You's have to be incredibly stupid or incredibly ignorant to believe this bullshit. You can't take bits and pieces of a predictive model with various possible results and Frankenstein together a conclusion after the fact and call it "accurate." It's a JOKE that anyone would be so stupid as to think this is decent science.

It's true we have a couple reports here and there that still say climate change isn't real or man made or whatever. There are way more that say it is real. I guess the question is that if you are wrong and it is man made and we keep making it worse, will we be able to reverse course? If so, great. If not, great world you left for the grandkids.

OH ****ING NO!!!!!!!!! Let's do drastic things based on stuff we have only marginal understanding of! That's always a prudent course of action!

What if the only thing staving off a massive catastrophic ice age is man made global climate "change." Nice job stopping pollution ****tard... you just left your great-grandkids an icicle for a planet! Sounds ridiculous right? It is... but it's based on about the same level of solid science that the current Henny Penny's are using to try to influence policy change.

OH ****ING NO!!!!!!!!! Let's do drastic things based on stuff we have only marginal understanding of! That's always a prudent course of action!

What if the only thing staving off a massive catastrophic ice age is man made global climate "change." Nice job stopping pollution ****tard... you just left your great-grandkids an icicle for a planet! Sounds ridiculous right? It is... but it's based on about the same level of solid science that the current Henny Penny's are using to try to influence policy change.

Now don't go scaring me. 10,000 years ago my ground would have been buried in 100 feet of ice.

I guess the good news is I wouldn't need to worry about mowing the lawn one last time before I croak.

You can't be ****ing serious. So we got it all ****ing down! We know more than enough to make predictive models.... we just don't do it cuz we don't wanna.

NOT ONE ACCURATE PREDICTIVE MODEL IN HUMAN HISTORY. Not one.

I have no problem with people who "believe" humans are causing global climate change. I certainly think it's possible. It's the ****ing ridiculously HORRENDOUS "scientists" who claim to KNOW that piss me off. In NO OTHER SERIOUS FIELD would their antics not be laughed off the pages of journals. You can't constantly pass of your hypotheses as facts ESPECIALLY after they keep coming up short.

Did you bother to read the report or just the canned critique by a known alarmist? I stopped reading the critique when they claimed this...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
You's have to be incredibly stupid or incredibly ignorant to believe this bullshit. You can't take bits and pieces of a predictive model with various possible results and Frankenstein together a conclusion after the fact and call it "accurate." It's a JOKE that anyone would be so stupid as to think this is decent science.

As an outsider to this, your position seems more based on emotion than science. I know it's a bit of a stylistical observation.

As an outsider to this, your position seems more based on emotion than science. I know it's a bit of a stylistical observation.

No my actual opinion of the REAL science is one of measured skepticism but I do believe that current research SUGGESTS that man's actions could certainly affect the global climate.

My emotion response is a reaction to the scare tactics and bad science used by the media and amateur scientists to distort reality to fit their agendas. The current environmental movement is more reflective of some twisted religious movement than of cold hard scientific inquiry.

To be clear, there are plenty of honest intelligent scientists searching for answers who BELIEVE that we need to take action now to avoid disaster. I have no problem with those BELIEFS. I take issue when they are presented as FACTS when there has been nothing to substantiate them as such.